Nintendo has revealed that some future retail Switch games will require you to own a MicroSD card in order to play, with NBA 2K18 being the first physical game that requires additional storage to be present.

While the game won't be entirely unplayable - it is said that a "portion" of each title will be available "out of the box", even without a MicroSD card - it does mean that in order to get the full experience, you're going to have to pony up even more cash. Nintendo says that the packaging for games which require a MicroSD card will be clearly marked to avoid confusion.

A microSD card will be needed for certain Nintendo Switch games that contain an especially large amount of content and require additional storage for players to enjoy the full experience.

If you purchase a physical version of a game that requires an additional microSD memory card, you will be able to play a portion of the game right out of the box (for example, specific levels or modes).

To enjoy the full game, downloading additional data is required. Depending on the storage requirements for each game, it may be necessary to purchase a microSD card to expand storage space. When purchasing a digital version of the game, it may also be necessary to purchase a microSD card depending on the game’s storage requirements and the storage available on the consumer’s Nintendo Switch console.

Some Nintendo Switch games will require consumers to purchase an additional microSD memory card to play them. Our expanded storage solution offers flexibility for those who need it to play these games. People can choose exactly how much additional storage space they want to buy, depending on the number and type of games they play, and the amount of content they plan to download.

The Switch has 32GB of built-in storage as standard, which, you would assume, would be enough to avoid this kind of thing. We now find ourselves in the strange situation of needing expandable memory simply to play boxed, retail releases. Still, it makes Nintendo's recent agreement with SanDisk to create themed MicroSD cards a little more understandable.

Damien has over a decade of professional writing experience under his belt, as well as a repulsively hairy belly. Rumours that he turned down a role in The Hobbit to work on Nintendo Life are, to the best of our knowledge, completely and utterly unfounded.

This is exactly what we were scared of with the confusion of the Lego City packaging. This is inexcusable, and anti-consumer as hell. I defend a lot of what Nintendo does, but there's no defending this garbage. The Switch cards are available in sizes plenty big enough for any Switch game, yet Nintendo is allowing 3rd parties to cheap out by only putting a portion of the game on a smaller card. Nintendo allowing this to become an accepted practice is not okay.

Well that sucks. I wasn't worried about out of the box storage being just 32gb as I was going mainly physical, but now I am. I wish we knew about this prior to launch. It doesn't matter to me but it isn't ideal is it?

I can imagine some angry new customers of Switch at Christmas and that isn't what Nintendo need while they are doing this well.

As posted in the forums, how are some of these games as big as they are? Unused content?

At the same time though this only seems to apply to the third party games that just end up being huge. Given Switch isnt the market leader they have no reason to change how it works, so we end up with the same as on other systems - make us install.

Granted its limited to those third party games, due to the low compression standards on other hardware. At the same time, you can easily pick up a cheaper SD card and get great storage out of it, depending on the games you want to play.

The digital version will require an SD card because it's 25GB. The physical version will either have a smaller 10GB download, or no download at all if 2K Games opts to use a 32GB cartridge. I hope they don't cheap out.

@JamesR it's not that it will necessarily "require" an SD card, its that's the full game isn't in the cartridge. It isn't in the cartridge because Nintendo is allowing them to cheap out and use a smaller size. That's the problem.

We've had a big discussion about this in the forums over the weekend. This is bad in my book and down to the limited size of the cartridges and the internal memory. And a 64GB cartridge could be prohibitively expensive. Small indies are already passing on the cost of small cartridges, e.g. Rime. 32GB is the limit so far.

If I buy a physical game I expect it all to be on the cartridge. Having part of the game downloaded onto a memory card defeats the purpose. And what happens years down the line when people want to play these games physically?

@memoryman3 The problem is that they DID cheap out. They've confirmed it. Whether or not the download will fit in the Switch's internal memory is not the issue. The issue is that they've chosen to use a cheaper game card that doesn't fit the game, and pass that expense on to the consumer.

The era of small 'triple A' games is over. It's a common occurrence to have games over 25 gbs. Look at wii u XXX. Iterations of halo, gears of war, assassins creed. Plus their GB sized patches. It's sad but sacrifices are made by everyone. Consumers, developers, hardware makers.

@daveh30 ah. So the game will need a download and depending how close to the edge you are, you may need to expand. Got it. There's been a lot of reporting that seem to suggest the download itself can't fit on the Switch (which seems odd and makes me recall the Lego City issues from a few months back)

Not much of a problem if you're prapared from the start. Due to speed issues, I filled up my Switch with the digital version of BotW and bought a 128 GB SD card and I'm doing just fine. Although because I'm going digital with the Switch I'd prefer if SanDisk release their 400GB card soon...

Real issue is allowing developers to pass this issue on us, the customers. I understand this if this were an issue with the downloadable version being too big, but for the physical? A bad practice that has been allowed, what a shame.

A sandisc 128GB card is about 50 bucks, and they go on sale a lot. Buy one and you will be good for pretty much ever. I downloaded the entire game for Splatoon 2 and Mario+Rabbids and it's just slightly more than 6GBs... total. A 32GB card can be obtained dirt cheap now. It's 2017 guys, microSD isn't the expensive format it was even 5 years ago.

Current games,with all their DLC,updates and now even the full game not being in the cartridge/disc,are going to be very hard to preserve for future generations(?'m not talking about pirated files that can be downloaded,I'm talking about physical copies in videogame museums or private collections)

The biggest issue is what this means 20 years from now, when servers are gone and updates no longer available. If my son wants to pick up Breath of the Wild to play with his kids, they miss out on DLC and a few framerate optimizations, but the whole game is there and playable to completion. Games that follow this new trend will be essentially lost. THAT is why this practice is not comparable to patches and DLC...

I'm not surprised that this would happen as I've never felt 32GB was massive for the carts. That said, I'm a bit surprised it's a basketball title that sees us hitting that wall. I can't imagine there's a huge storage requirement for such a game. As other have noted, it could be the developer cheating out.

I think in 12 or 18 months it won't be uncommon but. Throw a large RPG or FPS on the system, possibly with cinematics etc, and 32GB can go pretty quickly. I know many will say that something like BotW was massive and only 14GB, but it did use relatively low quality textures and didn't have a lot of cinematics, so I can see other games that go for higher fidelity graphics struggling. Graphically the system can go further than the PS3 that had titles filling Blu-ray Discs.

I do hope devs are smart about it but moving forward...shipping low quality textures that the game can be played with and having higher detailed content as optional downloads for example.

With any lock the physical media gets cheaper too and capacity increases. Get it to 64 and the need for external storage drops dramatically as long as games don't implement lazy patching routines (like some titles that see people basically downloading the entire game again on other consoles after an update).

Huh... I mean. Buying an SD card is no big deal, at least for most people, assuming you don't need an excessively large card for this.... but what if these downloads aren't available on the Switch 10 years from now?

Really this is no different to some releases on other consoles that require installations; of course a difference is they tend to have the hard drive space already inside (although there were the 8GB X360 and the 12GB PS3).

Still it is disappointing if its due to a failure to compress the game data or a desire to use cheaper game cards to pass costs onto the consumers.

How impactful this is remains to be seen although at least the relative affordability of Micro SD cards may make many see it is as a minor annoyance than a decision impacting factor.

We should've known that this would happen since the beginning. Cartridges aren't the cheapest to buy so it's either the company buys small amounts of expensive cartridges resulting in a higher price for the game or you buy the game and end up paying more for an SD card which would help in the long run for any future purchases

I'm not terribly surprised or phased by this at all. I recently bought a small stack of 360 games, and guess what? They all required sizable downloads, which were saved to a storage device I installed specifically for that purpose. The extra step is inconvenient, to be sure, but did anyone buy a Switch without also planning on expanding that memory at some point? Even if the only thing you ever use the storage for is a collection of smaller indie titles, those gigs add up quickly.

Besides, as time goes on those flash cards are becoming cheaper and cheaper. My first home computer had 700 MB of hard drive space. My switch has 150 gigs. As long as it's easy to swap those flash cards in and out as needed, I'm not complaining.

@SLIGEACH_EIRE I can tell as a PS4 owner most 3rd party game require huge patches day one to work properly. In other words you won't be able to play those PS4 games years down the road as you are suggesting.

Always wondered how certain third party devs were going to address their gargantuan day one patches. Now I know. Balls to this.

Edit: Let's tread a little carefully here folks. While this is far from an example of best practice, isn't this going to be a fully featured game i.e. content parity with other consoles? If we don't temper the backlash we may well start putting some devs off and end up with a load of cheapo "portable" versions of games.

Was there ever another possibility? Were we expecting bigger and bigger cartridges made for the same price every time a game exceeds the limit? Because that's impossible and would be the only solution to this.

100% of physical Xbox and PS4 hard drives have to install to the hard drive. SD cards are the cheapest form of memory there is, if you can't buy a decent sized one you shouldn't be involved in gaming at all and definitely wouldn't have purchased a Switch.

People saying "what about when the servers are going down!" are being obtuse, the Wii still lets you redownload games and that came out in 2006, and shows no signs of going down for a long time. It's a complete non issue. UNLESS you have extremely tight data limits and are against downloading at all, which is understandable, but also easily avoidable in the 21st Century, and if that's the case you aren't set up for gaming on any system regardless. Even if the Wii servers do go down in the next few years, they would do so with warning, allowing you to install any and all games you want before it happens. By the time the Switch is in the stage of its life that any of this is relevant, 2tb SD cards will be available for next to nothing.

If you own a Switch and were planning on playing more than 2-3 games in the entire life of the system, expecting not to also buy an SD card is pure untainted idiocy.

At the end of the day, we live in a world now of constantly growing games with updates, DLC, patches, season passes etc. Not to mention graphics and textures constantly getting larger. We are getting closer and closer to physical games being entirely obsolete and anybody holding on to the idea of having entire games on cartridges with no downloads necessary is the modern equivalent of a Luddite. Simply not going to happen.

PS I got a 200GB microSD card for £35. That's the average cost of this being a non issue forever for a guy like me that hoards hundreds of games. The average gamer could get a smaller card for like £12 and be fine forever. If you're so violently against paying those miniscule extra costs you may aswell stick with an N64 for eternity because nothing in 2017 will make you happy.

I hate this new generation of gaming, you either get full games but in digital form only or you get half the game on physical with the other half gone to digital.The days of full physical copy of games are coming to an end. So if I bought a future Legend of Zelda game I can only access dungeons 1-4 on the cartridge but dungeons 5-8 will only be accessible if I have extra memory and be auto download after completing the first four?

Meh, I don't see this as a big deal at all. Anyone who bought a Switch should have known this would likely happen. It's not like it's the Vita and memory cards are hideously overpriced. I bought a 128 Samsung card for like $40. Everything is relative. PS4 came with 500GB which sounds like a lot but when you install games over 50GB in size and the operating system needs 30GB plus, you are left with about 7-8 games max before you need more storage. Most Switch games are 4-5 gigs or less. You get roughly the same amount of games. Micro SD cards a cheap, people! I don't get the anger; especially when Nintendo is giving you fair warning. Haters gonna hate.

This is a load of crap. Someone asked "do you expect bigger and bigger carts?" Yes, yes I do,last I checked we're not using new storage limits. Others say sad cards are chaep. Well if storage is so cheap then they can make 64GB switch carts. Companies don't want to pay for it? Then compress your game. The hidden costs of the switch are beyond utterly ridiculous.

The Switch doesn't have enough internal space for many games and Game Cards are expensive to manufacture. Requiring a low-cost SD card, that many would have anyway, seems to be a reasonable work-around to get third-party games onto the Switch.

The Switch has very limited storage capabilities. This isn't a shock or surprise. It costs more to manufacture Game Cards vs optical media. Not a surprise. Either Switch doesn't get the games, we pay more for titles due to Game Card cost or we get the games, at the same price as other systems and just have to buy an SD card. Seems reasonable.

If developers charged more for games with higher capacity Game Cards, wouldn't that end up costing people more than an SD card after a couple of game purchases?

@MegaTen I'm not happy about it. But unfortunately being screwed over for console gaming is part and parcel of gaming. Look at yearly subscriptions for multiplayer gaming, the big 3 are doing it and MILLIONS of people accept it. I hate the idea of paywalls especially since games are more expensive on console. But until people say enough is enough, nothing is going to change. All the corporations see are £$€ signs.

@faint - The difference here though is Switch owners are being forced to purchase an additional card to play certain games to their full potential. On a PS4, you can get roughly ten full sized games incl. updates on a standard 500GB disk before you need delete the games when you want to play more, which is exactly what I do. So if I want, I never have to upgrade the HDD. So it's not the same thing and it's entirely justifiable for Switch owners to be upset by this.

@Yorumi A 200GB SD card is £35, less than one physical game. That's enough to sort out any memory issues on switch forever. Your sentence "Well if storage is so cheap then they can make 64GB switch carts" proves you have no idea what you are talking about, microSD card is a commonly used technology that has been used and developed for years, Switch cartridges are new, still developing, and several times more expensive.

If you think Nintendo producing bigger and bigger cartridges would save you money on SD cards, you are hilariously wrong. It would more likely to lead to £69.99 games.

@PorllM then they should have put more than 32 GB in the system. There is absolutely no getting around the face that Nintendo has screwed up here and is now once again punishing consumers for their mistakes. They never once hinted at this before the console went on sale. That is complete BS. If storage is so cheap then tell that to Nintendo not the consumers getting screwed by them.

@BustedUpBiker I'm not sure why, but the digital version of this game launches on the same day as the PS4 and XB1 version, with the hard copy coming later. I read that some territories will get a boxed copy (likely to have it at retail in some form at the same time for all platforms) that is just a download code. Don't know the "why" for any of that, but again, my suspicion is that this box reflects that version. I don't know for sure, but I also won't be running for a pitchfork any time soon.

@Kalmaro I think people are overreacting here. Really this is hardly surprising considering the update heavy nature of games in this day and age plus as you and a few others said a good sized memory card can be had for pretty cheap these days. Right now I have a 64 GB SD card in my switch which should set me well for a while.

Adding a hard drive into a switch just wouldn't be practical for various reasons. Case in point PSP where Sony thought sticking an actual disc drive into a portable was a good idea. Flash memory is ideal for a portable but it tends to be more expensive in larger amounts.

@MsgBoardGamer this is the first time Nintendo was absolutely not straight forward about their console. Joy cons are basically unusable. I suppose it's still somewhat anecdotal but I'm part of a large extended family that gets together often and there is war over who gets to use the pro controllers. So basically the switch didn't come with controllers. So there's hidden cost, and now oh hey physical games aren't complete so cough up more money. And if you want a usable battery better cough up more money.

Had I known all this and seen the real cost of a switch I probably wouldn't have bought it. I could have put that money into a nice ultra thin passively cooled laptop.

I had to buy extra storage for my other consoles.2 TB wasn't enough for Xbox One S and PS4 just recently allowed it.

This is the Modern Day Nintendo everyone wanted.We get all the problems everyone else has.This set up is standard practice on the other systems and 500GB barely fits 4 games if you buy anything like Halo,Gears of War or Uncharted.

wait til Skyrim and WWE 2k18 hit the Switch.I think 2k17 was around 80GB as you don't play off the disc for any game on either system.

@Yorumi How much are you talking? Switch contains flash memory which is faster and smaller than standard hard drives found in PS4, but also more expensive. They could either keep flash and improve the size which would make the Switch VASTLY more expensive. Or they could switch to PS4 style hard drives.....oh no wait they couldn't, the PS4 500GB hard drive is larger than the entire switch. Where you say they didn't hint to this before launch, it happened on PS4, Xbox 1, and to a lesser extent Wii U. Why would they mention it? Anybody expecting otherwise was an idiot.

Also your line about Joy Cons being unusable is an absolute joke, I've seen people of all ages and gaming experiences pick them up and use them instantly. It's a NORMAL CONTROLLER BUT SMALLER.

@MarioPhD All sounds very plausible. Even empty boxes on shelves draw the punters in. If the base game takes up anywhere near 25GB or over then that would explain the friendly warning. I suspect a missed opportunity for texture compression etc. here as well.

Perhaps they missed a trick here. A bundled, subsidised SD card of reasonable capacity could have resulted in more of a positive PR spin. Bonus side effect of effectively ending up with an NBA 2K18 physical copy of sorts after all.

They could have dropped the flash since it wasn't enough to be usable and included a microsd card of 256 or 512. That should have been cost neutral for them by dropping the flash and they've used that strategy before on the 3ds so it's not unthinkable.

@Yorumi I was with you until your ludicrous claims that joycons are unusable.. this is probably one of my favorites controllers on any platform and I say that as I own both XBox Elite controller and switch pro controller along with a couple dualshocks..

I'm not a big fan of having to buy extra micro-sd card to expand the storage.. and I can see future switch models come with higher built-in storage..

@cleveland124 Wasn't enough to be usable? Arms is 2.2GB, Mario Kart is 6.75GB the Switch has 25GB built in after OS etc. It's more than enough to be useable for a fair amount of time and can hold all of the first party games so far.

@MarvinTheMartian I get that. I also know the switch would be more expensive with more storage. What you could do is wait till the games on sale and make up the difference with an sd. Do you really expect a portable device to have the same storage as a PS4?

I used to be a physical only/original hardware only type of gamer. But that aspect of gaming and game collecting is not going to be sustainable the way things are going these days.

Yeah, it sucks that you need a Micro SD, but do people really think that they'd be able to last on 32GB (25GB formatted) for the life of the Switch? All through game updates, roster updates for sports titles, DLC? That's madness! Why not get a Micro SD just in case?

The real one to blame is Nintendo fo giving us only 32GB to work with. But that, realistically, would make the cost of the Switch go up (and in hindsight, would probably screw us over big time with the parts shortage) because Nintendo needs to buy those in bulk. Us consumers only need to buy one or two, so it's cheap for us.

So yeah, we're on the 3rd Nintendo console in a row that has some kind of storage option, the 2nd in a row where some games require large-ish downloads. And, based on what other consoles out there have been doing for roughly 10 years, and also PC's, this isn't a new concept at all. Yet somehow people are treating the Switch like this is the first modern console/mobile with card slot/netbook/tablet with only 16GB/360 or PS3 saying "WTF I need to buy storage?!" This is the current state of gaming, folks. We need extra storage sometimes. No console maker or PC gamer is immune. If you're not willing to accept the compromises, you might as well stop gaming or stop complaining.

That'll be one sale lost for any game that has this practice. With my internet I can't really download anything over 5gigs in the one day without getting hit with a large fee for going over my download limit.

@PorllM you can't have it both ways. If it's so crazy expensive for Nintendo then it's absolute BS that they're passing the cost on like this. If it's cheap as so many say about sd cards then Nintendo could have added more storage like 64 or 128 go. You don't get to say cards are cheap and then when asked why Nintendo didn't add more say it's way too expensive.

Do you have a microsd card in your switch. Not easy at all to lose unless you are swapping them out constantly. Plus as games are requiring a microsd now it seems your comment about losing them is pretty invalid. I mean joycons are very easy to lose should nintendo have not included them?

@YorumiActually I don't think the two are comparable. It's why games on internal memory load way quicker than even SD or cartridges.

@DamoCould be because the physical version isn't releasing until later, and this is for the digital version that will be sold day and date with the other versions.

Just a theory. But it would make sense. The only other thing I could think of is that the game is almost 60gb, and they're using a 32gb cart (which is really 29.7 usable space) which leaves 30gb content left over, and that is slightly more than the system has space for, therefore requiring an SD?

@Yorumi You seem to think the cartridges for the switch and microsd cards work to the same pricing?? I know you wouldn't be debating this if you were that ignorant of the industry so I'll take your last post as a joke.

MicroSD cards are vastly cheaper than custom built memory due to being a consumer product that has been used for years in a wide range of products. Not to mention even a tiny increase to the internal memory would have tipped the RRP of the system to over £300, making the Switch dead in the water.

@Godsent I've yet to meet one single person in RL who doesn't hate joycons. My thumb is still sore from playing Mario kart last night. Everyone fights over who gets to use the pro controllers and it tends to end as soon as someone's hands get too sore.

Almost every gamer has mk8 and zelda. If you dl those and want to download arms you are out of luck. Storage that only allows 2 games is pretty worthless to me. Even 128 sd card would be a huge improvement.

I hope I won't need to buy separate SD card for each game that will require additional download.Don't like that cheap business at all. If I buy physical release I want it to play it full out of the box

@Yorumi That's because you're confusing the SD Cards with the Switch cartriges.

Switch carts are not SD cards. The reason memory is so cheap these days is because the process for making the mediums has gotten cheaper, allowing them to make more space on a smaller device, which cuts the cost of making the casing for the chip, among other things.

@PorllM you can name call all you want but all it does is show the utter weakness of you argument. And if switch carts are so radically different from sd cards then that's on Nintendo too. If they didn't want to increase he internal memory then make bigger carts.

Physical games are more like passes to download the game. Defeats the entire purpose. This kind of practice on other systems is also terrible and making game preservation harder than ever.

In 10 or 20 years from now, PS4 or One emulators will be useless because games required downloaded data but the servers would be shut down by then, so the additional data cannot be downloaded thus making the game unplayable. I don't want the Switch to go the same way.

@MegaVel91 and who's fault is that? Oh Nintendo. Oh it's too expensive cause they went with some proprietary format instead of a cheaper medium and just decided to pass the costs along to the consumer without even telling them.

I bought a 128 GB SD card at launch anticipating that this would be a thing one day. It sucks that I had to, but I accepted the reality. Even the PS4 and X1 run out of room and require either data deletion or upgrading the HDD. Hell, Sony made the HDD easily accessible in anticipation for this.

I am sure I will have to get another one one day, but I will cross that bridge when I get there.

I guess people forgot about the days when you had to buy external memory cards to save data - and in some cases multiple memory cards if one's game collection was big enough. Sure the game was playable without a memory card, but you would have to get through the game in one sitting without dying without one - so they were required.

Not really that big of a deal. The majority of switch owners would have bought a sd card pretty early in their purchase timeline. I'd rather this than no big third party games at all. Also knowing Nintendo in a year or two they will make higher capacity carts. Plus this is the nature of the beast. I buy a new ps4 game and then go do laundry or make dinner while i wait for the install and updates to go through. Nintendo is still the fastest of the big 3.

@Yorumi I didn't call anybody a name? I assume you read the wrong comment there.

You can't just MAKE BIGGER CARTS. Let me try and spell this out for you since you're being wilfully ignorant. Switch cartridges need a whole lot of privacy protection and copy protection. A blank 32GB switch game cartridge will cost several (SEVERAL) times more than a 32GB SD card. This is unavoidable because one is an aging technology that costs next to nothing and can be used for anything, one is a modern and up to date media cartridge for one specific console. If they made bigger carts that would be added to the game price, no developer would pay for it for you. Since YOU'RE paying the extra memory either way, the SD card route will ALWAYS be cheaper for the consumer.

In time when Switch carts drop in price a 64GB will probably be released. It would be a decent price at the time maybe but right now it would be much more than the 32GB card and would probably result in a £59.99 minimum game price if used. This is because switch game carts are many, many years behind SD cards in development and progress. Your argument that one is the same as the other and that Nintendo putting more memory in is the same as a customer buying an SD card, simply does not make sense.

@PorllM no it doesn't need all that. The fact of the matter is they chose to go with an expensive proprietary format and are punishing us for it. Doing so without even telling us. Defend and deflect all you want but the fact of the matter is this is a bait and switch. Nintendo is becoming one of the most anti consumer companies in the industry.

Gasp A MICRO SD CARD IN 2017! I THOUGHT WE STILL USED FLOPPY DISK'S!!!1111!! but really they are dirt cheap and im guessing most of you guys haven't owned an xbox one. this isn't an issue. they will figure out how to compress the update on the cart.

@Yorumi Chose to go with expensive proprietary format and are punishing us lmao? The only way they could make game cartridges the same price as SD memory would be to use ACTUAL SD CARDS. Which would result in all Switch games being very easily copiable and spreadable via the internet. There isn't a game company in the world that would consider it. Let's compare this to the Vita which had equally expensive proprietary format (that held much less) and an absurdly overpriced memory card where an 8GB one would be similar in price to a 120GB SD card at the time. (SD cards have dropped by a much bigger margin than the Vita memory cards in the time since, also).

You say I'm the one defending and deflecting but you're arguing for the impossible and proving your ignorance with every reply. I don't mind people being wrong and I'm often wrong myself but you're actively ignoring it and repeatedly fighting despite being proven wrong by myself and many other posters every time you reply, embarrassing.

@NintendoFan4Lyf
Actually, you can't. That is the one and only criticism I will strongly agree with here.

There is no option to transfer data back-and-forth between SD and internal. You have to delete a game, remove the SD card and re-download if you wanted to download to the internal memory, or visa versa for the external. Or you could just download with the SD in to go to SD, and remove before downloading to go to internal. I believe it is to prevent piracy because their past systems have been rampant with it. But I do believe they are taking things too far in their efforts to prevent piracy, and the consumer is suffering as a result.

Me, I just pretend the internal memory doesn't exist, and have everything go directly to my external memory, which is 256gb atm (but will be upgrading to 400gb).

We know 2 things:
NBA 2K18 on Switch is ~25 GB in size.
The Switch has ~25 GB of free internal storage.

1) If NBA 2K18 came in a 32 GB cartridge, no additional downloads should be required outside of game updates.
2) If NBA 2K18 came in a 16 GB cartridge, that means users will have to download 9 GB of data to enjoy the full game. This should leave a plenty of storage space in the Switch itself without needing additional storage, even for the game's updates.
3) If NBA 2K18 came in an 8 GB cartridge, that means users will have to download 17 GB of data to enjoy the full game. This should still leave some storage space in the Switch itself without needing additional storage, though I suspect installing updates will likely force users to purchase a micro-SD card (however, updates are optional).

Could it be that additional storage is needed only for the digital version of the game, and that the current boxart for NBA 2K18 is for the digital version only (given that the physical version will be delayed by a month)??

@NintendoFan4Lyf on the PS4 the system memory is large enough that no single game will exceed it. Thus you could operate the system with any game and never need extra storage. For the switch external storage seems to be required.

Seriously...what's the big deal? Every console does this these days. I have about 14 different PS4 games (all on disc) and I can only really play 5 or 6 of them at any given time because of the massive installs each game requires to run. Thankfully, they finally released an update recently (a few years after the console's release) so you can install your games on external storage. At least Nintendo had the sense to plan for that eventuality from the start because obviously it was going to happen.

@business-scrub that's what i said the only issue is that they need to figure out how to compress it to the cart so you don't need wifi. then again nobody buys a $300 game system and does not have wifi.

I only buy physical games, and I really want NBA 2K18. This news is not good, of course, but I will buy a card to play full versions of games. I might buy the game before the card though, as I can still play some stuff in the game.

@MegaTen This is more than likely 2K using the smallest cart they can due to not knowing how well it will sell on Switch. IF it does well and they release 2k19, you can be sure it will be on a better cart. It isn't going to become the norm. Nintendo are one of the best at compression in the business.

With that said, 25GB isn't remotely large for a 2017 AAA game, and anybody expecting it not to happen at all wasn't living in the real world.

@MsgBoardGamer He hasn't answered any of mine either except to deflect them into something else and complain about that more. Then said I was deflecting. Hilarious. Like you said, if anyone isn't happy with this, they should just not buy a switch. But they won't be buying very much technology in 2017 with that outlook, if any.

@MsgBoardGamer funny how you seem to imply that after you buy a console you're never allowed to vice a single complaint. Oh and you're lying about my posts I do post positive things about the switch and it's games,you are just conveniently ignoring those.

@MegaTen im sorry but wat? "We are not overreacting." "if this becomes a trend I will give my Switch to my mum, because she likes certain games on it. Then it's final farewell to gaming!" thanks for makein me laugh.

My biggest problem is I don't trust microSDs. I've only used one once (SanDisk), and it broke, costing me a ton of pictures.

And well, Needing two carts to play one game is ridiculous, especially if I ever need two microSDs. It'll get super confusing.

A simple solution is this game should have never seen a physical release, and any game too large to fit on one cartridge. Needing SD card space to play the game kind of defeats the purpose of a physical release...

On SNES we paid more money for cartridges with huge amounts of RAM and the Super FX chip. On 64 and gamecube we were forced to purchase memory cards like every other system those generations. On 64 an expansion pack was required or heavily recommended for several high end games. To play multiplayer on many systems, you need additional controllers, gameboys, sometimes other systems. Many of us cry about needing an SD card because the Switch's onboard hard drive is too small, but how many of us have external hard drives attached to our Xbox Ones, PS4s, or PCs? Nintendo is doing the best they can with cartridges, but they don't have the monopoly they used to on 3rd parties. Get angry at them if you want to be angry. But be honest, you knew in your heart you were going to buy an SD card in the first year of owning your Switch.

@607jf I own one micro sd card and it's in my 3ds. It's not at all a matter of can't afford and it's stupid when people make that case. I have no need. Internal memory, cloud backups, normal magnetic drive backups and such. Who exactly is sitting there hoarding micro sd cards?

THAT'S the cover of NBA 2k18? Hahahaha. It's outdated before it's even been released!! Funny stuff.

More on topic: EVERY CONSOLE REQUIRES GAME DATA TO BE INSTALLED TO INTERNAL MEMORY. No one should be surprised or upset by this. I'm pretty sure either Nintendo reps or general tech experts said this was inevitable at some point before the Switch ever came out. Anyone upset by this is either in denial or extremely ignorant about technology.

Alright, I don't want to get people mad but, everyone knew it only had 32 gig s of memory. Even if you buy physical. You are still going to purchase and download games and future apps that require memory. 128 gigs will cost you $40. 64 gigs $20. I have so many of these lying around it doesn't matter. These complainers had no foreshadowing of this? You are early adopters. How long have you people been playing video games? Most of you are on this site regularly and knew this before you purchased it. This issue is ridiculous at best utter rubbish at worst.

@Yorumi What do you mean uncomfortable controllers? You mean for single Joy-con? I have a Pro for the D-pad, but I found the Joy-con in the grip to be perfectly comfortable. I have used single Joy-con sparingly, but it wasn't too bad - I can see hands cramping for long sessions, though.

Sadly paid online is a console reality. Personally, I hate it and don't buy it because of the high price.

I may consider Nintendo's $20 annual cost if it means unlimited access to classic VC games for that time - but that will depend on what games are available and how often new titles come out. I will just enjoy the free online while it lasts and be cautiously optimistic with the pay service.

@607jf At $300 though you don't have to put down a loan (or credit card loan thing) for a Switch. You can save extra money from your paycheck and just get it; as a kid you could even save enough from your summer job. You certainly wouldn't also go and buy legitimately everything for the Switch then, as that would reach a guess of $1000+, something the two scenarios above couldn't pay for (immediately). And in those two scenarios, would you rather: buy a microSD, or buy another game? I'd ditch the 2k18 and go for 2 games instead.

@River3636@Rontanamo_Bay I'm not too upset about it, but my confusion is, what's the point of a physical release if you need an additional card to play it? Wouldn't you just put it all on a microSD? It might not be an issue worth raging about, but the decision seems to lack some common sense and is worth discussion.

Really disappointing. If they cant sell the box just with a download code in it, a tiny cardridge with additional downloads is the next cheapest and step.
I don't like it at all.
Very sad that Nintendo allows this.

@MegaTen Well I mean, they could. There's nothing technologically stopping them. The only reason they wouldn't is because you'd need a massive memory card to play it, which would severely limited sales. For NBA 2K being 25GB that simply isn't the case, it's just not that large. You will need a memory card sure, but you could get a very very cheap one and still have this and many other games.

I'm not saying not to port those PS3/360 games you're mentioning, the more small but impressive games like that the better. But that also doesn't mean they should cancel a game just because it will be a slightly bigger file size than the internal memory. The vast majority of switch owners will have a memory card so that would be unnecessary. 100GB, maybe, is pushing that limit.

@MasterWario I buy physical now too., but memory cards are a must on a portable. How many indie games do you purchase? What about future VCs. If you own a PS4 or Xbone you knew those 3rd party games required memory.. Buy a 128 gig and forget about the memory. What about future apps?

@MasterWario Well, my answer to this question is always that I would prefer to go all digital myself, but with the Best Buy Gamers Club and Amazon Prime discounts, physical is always cheaper at launch.

Flash drives are not even remotely similar to a microsd on a handheld. You stick it in it and never think of it again vs a computer where you only use it to move data between computers. If I lose my microsd it's because I've lost my switch.

Microsd is essential if you want to play some switch games just like joycons are required for some switch games. I bought a microsd and stuck it in my switch and never had to look for it. I've not lost a joycon yet, but I've spent much time looking for it. Nintendo even updated their OS to help you find lost joycons. The lost argument is a lost cause for you my friend.

I do wonder when the prices of Switch cartridges will begin to decline, particularly the 32 GB ones. As of June 2017, Nintendo had shipped around 13.5 million Switch games, which is good for a 4 month old platform, but still not a lot in the grand scheme of things.

I imagine prices for Switch cartridges will drop significantly once Nintendo is able to produce 100+ million of them by fall 2018. 64 GB Switch cartridges will likely be introduced by then, though they will be very expensive until around 2020 when Nintendo has sold 200+ million Switch games to bring down prices of cartridges even more. Economy of scale should do its work.

It's good that Nintendo will allow user to play portions of retail Switch games that require additional storage. People should be able to enjoy something even if they haven't met the necessary storage requirements.

@607jf NBA is not an EA game haha. Although you're correct, this isn't going to be the norm (for Nintendo games anyway). They may allow it for high profile third party games that they'd be dumb to turn down, like this though. This game is 47.66GB on PS4, and considering how decent it looks on Switch, I think they've done some magic shrinking it to the size it is in all honesty.

Lots of good points in here. Now that I think about it, it was going to happen sooner or later (a game requiring a MicroSD). It comes with the territory when dealing with a portable device that can play home-console level of games.

@countzero You're right, Wolfenstein: The New Order is around 48GB. Heck, GTA V on my PS4 comes in at a whisker under 70GB. Makes me wonder just how Nintendo squeezed Breath of the Wild – arguably the greatest game of all time – into just 13GB.

If the game is only 25gb, then 1 it could fit on a 32gb cart, and 2 even if it used an 8gb cart, there would still only be 17gb remaining which would not require an SD

Something isn't right. Either they meant it's 25gb above and beyond what's on the 32gb cart (which is the most likely option given that the game is around 60gb on other platforms) or it truly is 25gb and this is for digital download only. Since only the digital version launches in Sept.

It just doesn't make sense to have a 25gb game that requires SD. The entire game itself could fit on internal storage without SD.

Nintendo could have eliminated this frustration by allowing us to purchase a switch that had 64 or 128 gb of built in storage. Or bundled a 16 gb micro SD card with a switch. Heck, my $80 2ds came with a 4 gb SD card.

The difference between this and PS4/ Xbox one is that they come with a minimum of 500 gb hard drives to store games. You can manage your storage if you don't want to buy an external hard drive.

Well....It doesn't really matter for me because I haven't owned Switch yet. So, I must prepare these things before I buy Switch :1. At least 64 - 128 GB Micro SD Card, since I play not Big size Switch games, I don't have to worry too much.2. Screen guard. For protecting my Switch screen.3. Separated Clear case of Switch body tablet & Joy cons. Already provided at my local game shop.4. Switch cart case 24. I have bought it before I own the machine.5. Some nice pictures, designed by me myself, I will paste on backside of Switch so everybody can see my design when I take my Switch on the go.

And for the machine, when i'm ready to buy Switch, I will do these :1. Wait until December 2017, so if there is No White Switch at the moment, my Plan A = Neon Switch bundle + Additional Neon Joy Cons to make Double Blue Joy Cons. I can swap the shell of Switch Backside body with White color as Replacement (Written Super Switch) . Plan B = if Nintendo Ultimately announced White Switch officially, I will buy it with gleefully 100 %. 2. I will not buy Super Mario Odyssey on day 1. Wait until December 2017 to see if there is a White Switch announced. Super Mario Odyssey will be purchased on the day I buy Switch regardless of its color.3. Buy Switch games before I buy Switch machine. I live on Indonesia, not USA / Japan / Europe so buy the games quickly before it can't be purchased anymore due to old release date.

I have planned the things that I should buy first before I buy Switch. So, I will not surprised to see such a news like this.

Summary of the arguments here:1. "We need to download additional data?!" > "nintendo's not the first to do this!"2. "Why not buy a bigger capacity cartridge instead? Why should the customers shoulder the extra cost?" > "but then the game would be too expensive"3. "Let's boycott this practice" > "well goodbye to the 3rd party support. It starts here"4. "The switch should have a bigger internal memory instead. 32GB sucks" > "but then the switch would be priced very high. Nobody's gonna buy that"

Although I'm not interested in NBA 2K18, I have been thinking of buying a 200GB SD card months ago. The Switch's memory is gonna get all consumed up sooner or later anyway. Not all games can be bought physically, and some games especially co-op are best digitally. For multiple games requiring an SD card, I only need to buy one (I hope).

@Landlord Me too! I've bought all of my Switch, 3DS, Wii U, PS4 and Vita games digitally. In fact Breath of the Wild is the only physical game I own. Sure, HDD's and SD cards can be expensive (especially Vita!) and you don't get a pretty box to admire, but forcme, you just can't beat the practicality of seamlessly switching between games on the fly.

@MsgBoardGamer he only logical fallacy is yours,ad hominem. I don't need your permission, nor do you get to decide what is a legitimate complaint. You seem incapable of separating complaints,implying that any complaint is a complaint against the entire system and that someone cannot be capable of liking some things and not like other parts.

It's funny cause I have refused to pay for the things I don't like such as the paid online. I've been consistent about this. You're just desperately grasping at straws to throw an attack at me that isn't valid, nor truthful.

@janfritz "Not all games can be bought physically, and some games especially co-op are best digitally." What misguided thought-process sits behind that? What does it matter in the terms of co-op if it's physical or digital?

@duducamargo
"It comes with the territory when dealing with a portable device that can play home-console level of games."

Hit the nail on the head, even if said nail will bring upon some unfortunate truths.

If 2K did what companies did on previous Nintendo handhelds and made customized "handheld" versions of their consoles games, the games would be small and this storage debacle wouldn't exist, but the games would then end up being so inferior compared to their console counterparts to the point where few would bother buying them.

I only knew about this bcause I saw an article about it and hoped I could get it on Amazon for the discounted Prime price on release day, which I totally would have done. Alas. I'll wait for the "real" boxed copy.

@SanderEvers Is it really that back-breaking to pick out a card (which is easy to do) and put in the box, then put in another one? I'd much rather do that, and not have my Switch clogged up right away. Games get updates, and patches, and all kinds of crap down the road, it'll be filled soon enough, even if you've got all physical, so I'll maintain it as long as I can.

Going hybrid was a bold move IMO. Every single aspect of the system needed to compromise in order for the switch to be accessible to customers and provide a good experience at the same time. And I believe this goes to everything: storage, battery, controllers, GPU, CPU, and so on.

Given that, of course I'd like a beefed up Switch in all aspects, but I am very happy with what I got now, I think Nintendo did a great job designing this system and can't wait to see what they (or competition) will do to improve it in the future.

Lol, I am a gamer and I'm in business which is why I can see that we as consumers are getting the short end of the stick. My original argument was the Switch could have came with one like the 3DS. The 3DS had the microsd card in it and it required some skill to remove the back panel to upgrade it. This could have been the same way.

You still can't seem to grasp that Switch needing a microsd card is a thing now. So by not including it, it just became more complicated for the consumer because many will have to do it which is what you think Nintendo is protecting them from. And as discussed above the attach ratio suggests it's highly likely if you own a Switch you own MK8 and Zelda. If you own those two games digitally your internal storage is done and requires you to get a microsd card to download more games. This is way different than the 500 gb solution for PS4, Xbone. It is possible that there is someone who could get 10 games on those systems and not actually need another hard drive. Sure I got another one right away as I am a gamer and knew it would be insufficient, but this is worse than the 500 GB limit because almost everybody is going to buy more than 2 games for a system. So it affects a great deal more people than just us gamers and it drops to 1 game for a system if you want NBA 2k18 and it won't be the only game that does this.

@duducamargoI do think Nintendo should bundle a 32/64 GB micro-SD card with the Switch in some future hardware bundles and/or revisions in order to further alleviate this issue, especially once the cost of producing the Switch itself goes down.

@UmniKnight That's just my opinion btw. For me it's much more convenient to have co-op games digitally since there is no need to keep switching between cartridges if people wanna try different games. Also helpful in case I didn't bring some games and people wanna play together. But that's just me, do whatever's convenient for you.

@Switch99 We're on the opposite side of the spectrum, since I'm usually home-bound and deem my handheld (3DS) as my portable experience. After all, there's nothing else home-console that gets supported in my Wii-U's wake, is there?

@River3636 While it's true I don't have a (working) mircoSD, I'm not against buying one. I just think it's silly to buy 2k18 physically and then put a mandatory patch on the sd card. What if I ever need two sd cards? I've then got to have the right sd and the right cartridge inside the switch, which seems unnecessarily complicated. Put it all on the console memory or go digital.

Also, one thing they don't have is 1 TB mircoSDs. That's set for life right there but it's not an option. Those switch cartridges are small enough, and I don't want to organize tiny SDs that all look exactly the same. What's my point? If I went and bought all these high GB games I could burn through a microSD quickly. That's why I typically buy AAA games physically and then the indie games on the eShop; put all the indies on the external storage and the AAA titles on the system memory. But now the physical AAA titles need to take up sd memory?

It's not a deal breaker, and this probably won't effect me personally. However, with mircoSDs you can't just buy one and be set forever if you grab all these AAA titles on it; not to mention those things seem to be less stable than an HDD. Then you have to start juggling these tiny pieces of plastic just to play your physical games.

I said it before... 32gb internal flash would never be enough. Nintendo is a very expensive hardware (brand). You don't get your money worth paying that big amount for that little power. We are forced to get SD cards at the end anyway. I can't support Nintendo for this reason alone. They still aski 380 euro for the Switch machine that's in between xbox 360 and xbox one... it's been released this year... such low end system this big price. I would've been okay if they wouldn't ask this big amount for basic system. You still have to get those extras for full experience. Sorry bout it you are butthurt but it's the truth

So Switch has 32GB only but you could buy physical games but now you need big SD cards to play your physical games? Switch has invented the semiretail category. On Xbox One and PS4 you need to install games but you get 500GB/1TB/2TB out of the box and you can buy a 3TB small HDD for less than €100. Now Switch cartridges don't include the whole game and also you have to download part of it? That is simply ridiculous.

Wow people really are going crazy about this. It's as if a SD card is expensive. If Nintendo were being really anti consumer, they would have made proprietary storage like PS Vita and charge loads, but no they just use normal microSD which are very cheap.

@MsgBoardGamer yes, I am complaining about information I received after the fact. There was no way to know this and Nintendo hid it from us. I already have a switch so short of selling it off and basically having wasted my money I'm going to support the good aspects of the system. That said I've been supporting games more on PC than switch.

I'm hoping at this point people stop defending it and Nintendo improves. If not it's my last Nintendo system ever. We're not even a year into the system and we keep getting more crap from Nintendo. And if you're wondering no I haven't bought splatoon, nor arms, I've way reduced my purchases of Nintendo products. Yeah they get money from third party games but that's coming to an end too.

To me it's silly to spend $60 on a download of NBA 2k18 versus $38 for the physical where I can pre-order that at Best Buy right now. It also helps on the microsd side assuming it's a 10 GB download versus a 25 GB download as mentioned above. I bought a 128 GB card so I'm hoping that lasts me this generation and eating up 1/5th of the card on 1 game doesn't show promise.

@janfritz I'd be inclined to agree, if the Switch's internal storage weren't extremely small, and the purchase of a home-console (since that's what Nintendo markets it as) cuts into one's budget. Then factor in games + pro-controller and you're 400-500 (euros in my case) in already.

I'll keep digital purchase at an arms-length, preferably for as long as possible, because even if we're going digital, Nintendo didn't bother to give the Switch some proper internal memory, and as such, I won't bother to pay extra just to fix that.

Heh... I grew up having to buy memory cards for my ps one and GameCube so IMO it's not really a biggie. Just shop around and you will get a decent offer. I've spent £120 in hard drives for my pc so £20 on a decent SD card isn't much of an issue.

Well you've not done a convincing job convincing me that 32 GB is enough so I guess we are even. Seriously though NBA 2k18 is just the first. If you want third party AAA games you will need one. This is proof. That's just to play 1 game on a system.

Ironically though the 3DS XL came with 4 GB of memory. The resolution of the Switch is 10.8 times that of the 3DS. So a comparable number would be 43.8 GB storage. Compensate for the much larger OS and you are at 50 GB. But even then you are just matching the memory of a handheld released 6 years ago when home consoles typically have larger games. Breath of Wild is a perfect example. There is no game on the 3DS close to the scope of that.

@shaniEh... not annoying for me.I'm not only a gamer, but also a collector.So I want my games in physical form.I don't mind to swapping games all the times.I like to display my games like books in bookshelf.

On a side note I think any game that is first party Nintendo will probably never require this. Nintendo are VERY good at making their games low memory. If Nintendo ever does release a first party game that requires an SD card I would be very surprised if they don't bundle one with it. They did that with animal crossing and Pokémon on the GameCube.

@Yorumi So true. @MegaTen said exactly what I was about to say. Defend bad practices over and over and over, accept the bare minimum and say "please sir, can I have some more bad practices and game drought?" and they keep handing you that. It sank the WiiU. Demand better or get taken advantage of.

wow I remember when Tetris was on a 32KB cartridge how times change but surely a 32GB flash cart and the in built storage should be enough for a Handhelg game even PS4 and Xbox One don't use more than 50-60GB and they are home consoles. Nintendo should have just not changed their usual strategy and made a slightly less powerful handheld if they wanted bigger games they should have stayed in the Home console market it's not like they don't have the resources to compete.

@Switch99 Well, we both have a permanent problem saddled up on (probably) the inside, and I reckon we both use games for the same purpose: To stay entertained while dealing with said problem and all the others that come around. At least the Switch is a system that gives us both what we seek, more or less (I'd rather have had a stronger system, if only to alleviate some of that third-party whining, god does that grate my nerves)

I'm not really phased by this as I got a 128GB micro SD while it was on sale around launch, since I was expecting to download a ton of games due to the Switch being portable. I can understand why physical buyers would be upset about this however. I wonder how big NBA 2K18 actually is though since it requires an SD. This would mean it's bigger then internal memory even if purchased physically.

@Yorumi I was in the "last Nintendo system ever" category with the Wii U, but then they introduced Super Mario Odyssey...how can I stay away? 15 years since our last non-linear Mario.

I'd like to be done after the Switch now, but if they release Pikmin 6 with a level editor on their next console, how in the world am I going to stay away? (Hopeful for two Pikmin installments on the Switch)

Hopefully they'll just give me the Pikmin level editor on the Switch and I can be done with Nintendo. But then of course they'll show Odyssey 2 and I'll just be in a pickle...

Yeah Nintendo has some shady practices and terrible mistakes, but I've played enough on my Wii U to more than justify the price, and I'm sure I'd do the same with the Switch (at least if Odyssey is as good as it looks). I sure don't like the internet subscription fee, but $20 a year is worth the enjoyment I'll have, even for their shoddy service. It's a BS fee, but a reasonably priced one; kinda like a toll road.

@PorllM Cheaper for the publisher. That's all they care about, and if the consumer will suck it up and buy it anyways.It's probably why even on the N64, many third-party publishers required players to buy memory cards to save even single-player games, so the publisher didn't have to pay the extra bucks to get carts with backup RAM (or Flash, whatever). Saved the publisher probably $5 but cost the consumer an extra $20 (or whatever Nintendo charged) if they needed another card.

@Anti-Matter Okaaay, but are you aware that you're basically just collecting microSD cards?
I mean, you could just download the games and put empty dvd cases into your bookshelf and it would be the same. ^^

Considering how expensive Switch cards are, it makes sense. Bigger cards cost more, so I can see some publishers using a smaller card and requiring players to download a part of their game, all to avoid raising the game's retail price.

NBA 2k17 sold 8.5 million last year. It's a very popular game and a portable version of it will likely be popular and it will likely lead NPD in September. I don't think you're right on me being the minority. The Switch is about expanding to more than just the 13 million Wii U owners. It's about expanding to the average consumer. The average consumer wants these types of games as noted by it being the highest selling game of the month. And I just disagree about the difficulty of putting a microsd card in a slot. If you've ever used a computer you can do it. The average consumer does it all the time. I think it's very likely that the Switch gets bundled with a microsd in the future and I'd be curious in say 2020 the number of Switch consoles that people are frequently using that don't have one in it.

@MasterWario I really thought the switch was a turning point. The initial reveal looked good but what we're finding is it looked good cause they weren't entirely honest. For me I've just been finding alternatives to Nintendo games on PC and iPad. Even when they're not exact mirrors(like here is Mario alternative,or Pokémon alternative etc) I'm just finding so many creative and fun games.

I'm just finding consoles are losing every advantage they ever had. Games are usually cheaper in PC, it's backwards compatible, there's no online fee, they tend to have more creative and interesting games. I suppose that's why steam activity is growing so rapidly. Here's just less BS there.

I like some switch games, rabbids is good, odyssey looks good but overall I'm not enthralled with Zelda. Yeah it's nice but it's pretty empty. Compared to the likes of morrowind, or even skyrim it's like yeah it's nice but it's not really special. I look at the exploration in something like a subnautica or gw2, yeah yeah the latter is an mmo but damn there's a lot to explore(and it's the same price as Zelda with no subscription). More and more I'm investing in my PC than my consoles(other than retro consoles).

If NBA 2K18 moves 1 million on the Switch, that would be about 15% of Switch owners and would be alot of people needing microsd cards. Certainly not as niche as you make it seen. And you know it's only the first game to announce this there will be others and AAA will sell on the Switch even if it's not as much as the HD twins. If any consumer intends to go download only they'll need a microsd. 10 years ago that was niche, today it's not so much.

What's your thoughts on a future microsd bundle? Certainly if that happens it's an admission that 32 GB isn't enough for the average consumer by Nintendo. They know who is using microsd and who isn't.

So it's like the Expansion Pak for the N64 so you could play Donkey Kong 64 and Perfect Dark (the only two games I can think of off the top of my head that actually required them).

Meh, no biggie to me until there's a game I want that will need one (I'm looking at you WWE 2K18 lol), and even then, you cannot compare the £65 price of an Expansion Pak back in the mid 90's to a cheap Micro SD card that can be found for a few quid.

@UmniKnight
I think you're missing the point. They could pack in whatever they wanted, but you're gonna pay for it. No such thing as a free lunch. Sure, they could pack in a 128gb SD card, but the SKU will run an extra $50 as a result.

Either you pay for it when you buy the system, or you pay for it after you buy the system, but either way you're going to pay. So what difference does it make... At least by giving the consumer the choice to expand or not, they're not mandating everyone pay extra.

The Nintendo Switch should have 128gb or more storage than the standard 32gb which is nothing for today current games, you would think Nintendo would have learned their lesson when they released that stupid 8gb Wii U model.

Unfortunately this is true of a lot of games on all modern Formats. I don't see what Nintendo (or Sony, or MS) can do though. They're not going to stop publishers putting games on their platforms because they want support. If consumers don't want to buy it they wont, at no risk to the platform holder.

But it's alot cheaper for Nintendo to buy SD cards than a consumer. It's also not entirely true that the cost of the item leads to the price. Price is more nuanced with supply/demand. When the Switch launched the Japanese price converted to US $ was $260. What did we get for that $40 extra? Not a dang thing. And it's selling so Nintendo is cool with that.

@cleveland124
It's because they are a business and no matter what you buy, companies make a profit off of it.

Unless you expect this company to stay in business by selling you their products at cost? The shoes you bought probably cost a 10th of what you paid for them. Thats how business works.

If you want something at cost, then you need to go make it yourself and then you can have it at cost. But as long as you're buying from someone else, they stay in business by specifically selling things for more than they paid.

And that $40 helps cover the years of R&D poured into developing the system. Cause they didn't magically snap their fingers and presto, out came a Switch. It will take years for them to recoup that cost. And you have to account for shipping and packaging, retail cut, advertising... this is business 101.

Be grateful we have the ability to expand our storage via the industry standard micro-SD. I bought a Vita for $350 and got... wait for it... 0gb storage. And oh, they were charging $100 for 32gb. So it was $450 just to have the handheld with equivalent storage Switch has out of the box.

I can't remember if Animal Crossing was the same but DK64 and Lylat Wars were more expensive than other games at the time so at least some of the cost was passed on, even to users who didn't want a Rumble Pak or didn't want/already had an Expansion Pak.

@UmniKnight
Of course there is, but thats only applicable when supply outstrips demand. Then you can lower the price to increase the quantity demanded until you have equilibrium with the quantity supplied.

Right now demand is outstripping supply so there is no need whatsoever to increase the quantity demanded with a price drop. That will come later.

I studied economics. And even I wouldn't presume to know better than they do.

@MegaTen What nonsense? If you are longing for the days when everything came on one cartridge and there are no other downloads I'm not sure what to tell you. Buy a SNES and enjoy what you probably thought were the glory days.

This is the new reality of gaming. My point is the people that are complaining likely aren't affected at all. I have a 128GB card that hasn't been used AT ALL other that a few paltry downloads. Just like when my PS4 gets full eventually I'll delete portions of downloads and download them at a later date if so inclined. This doesn't really affect anything.

@electrolite77 That's not correct at least in Europe, I'm not sure about America. Donkey Kong 64 and Lylat Wars cost the same as other N64 games, even less, in spite of having larger packaging and the add-ons included. Same for Animal Crossing, it cost the same as the other Nintendo GC games.

@Octane where has it been stated that it's on a 32G card? The install for the download version is only 25G. It should fit quite comfortably on a 32G card. The only explanation is that they've cheaped out and used a 16...

@MailOrderNinja Not to speak for @MegaTen, but you're missing the point of why many of us are complaining about this.

It's not the fact that you have to install stuff on your system, it's the fact that this is only a necessity because 2K cheapened out and went with lower-capacity carts. They could have put it on a 32GB cart but, since those would cost them more money, it seems they went with the cheaper 16GB ones instead and delegated a cost that they should have assumed onto the consumer. Since shipping the whole game on a single cart is an option in this case, I don't see how this is excusable.

Typical Nintendo crap when it comes to storage. They make a system with less storage so they can pass that cost onto consumers instead of doing it themselves. I wish Nintendo would bite the bullet and include more than 32 gbs of storage on their console for once

@Meaty-cheeky "you would think Nintendo would have learned their lesson when they released that stupid 16gb Wii U model."

Actually it was a 8GB model, so even worse. Almost nobody bought it so stock storage is much appreciated in spite of what some people here want others to believe. Do people really believe this is for consumers so they don't pay more than what it's necessary?

The Switch was supposed to have 64GB (developers have confirmed this) but Nintendo chose 32GB because of the hype so they could make more money with every sold console.

Switch and their games are not cheap. They are relatively expensive, both hardware and software compared to its competition and yet it has some mandatory extra expenses like Switch pro controller and now SD cards even if you go physical. So yes, playing on Switch is more expensive than playing on Xbox One or PS4 with worse hardware and fewer games, just saying. Yes, it's portable but with very poor battery life and marketed as home console by Nintendo.

Worse case scenario, you can get a 32GB card for around a tenner off Amazon, its not the end of the world but it does give incentive to go buy an SD card at last whether it be a large one or just a small one to be able to play those games that require a card.

Heck, it was either this or the launch price being bumped up further for extra storage inside....

Okay Mr. Economics. At least you dropped your dumb people will lose an sdcard they will never touch argument. Now you want to add something to this board or just continue personal attacks because you didn't like me not agreeing with you.

This is actually good news. Nintendo isn't restricting big game developers to only releasing games that can fit on a physical cartridge. I was actually concerned that the max size games could be on a physical card meant that bigger games would not see releases on the Switch. This news actually eases those concerns for me.

Companies don't always make a profit. Nintendo lost money for 4 straight years because they couldn't sell the Wii U at a profit. The goal is maximum profit which involves a variety of things such as how many you can sell at a given price point. Nintendo thought the Switch would maximize profit at $300. Where they right? They weren't on the Wii U. Given the shortages they probably wish they started at $350.

So is it worth it to throw in a $3 sd card for the given price? Maybe. You can't discuss maximum profit without looking at consumer preference. Including more storage helps move consumer demand towards downloadable content. Downloadable content is more profitable by a wide margin. You could certainly come to the conclusion that throwing in a $3 sdcard could add more profit to the transaction. I preordered NBA 2K18 for the Switch for $38 from Bestbuy. Did they sell it to me at a loss? In your words, inconceivable. Thus the retailer is taking a huge cut. It's in Nintendo's best interest to limit that cut. Nintendo could incentivize people to move towards download better than they are for sure. Either way Nintendo is making a nice profit on the Switch with or without a sdcard.

It's not exactly like Vita but the Switch cartridges are glorified SD flash-memory cards owned by Nintendo and Nintendo charges developers a big price for them, so in the end is a similar situation as the consumers are the ones paying the price literally: games get more expensive or you need an SD card (if it's cheap for you just imagine for Nintendo to make cartridges in China) to download part of the games because the developers don't want to buy the more expensive cartridges.

The problem could be solved if:
a. Nintendo included more memory in the console (not shabby 32GB),
b. they didn't overprice their glorified cartridges that are cheap flash-memory, sometimes even slower than the cheapest SD cards currently available.

And it's annoying because:
a. even if you go physical you need an internet connection and download part of the game,
b. it's a handheld that was marketed as using physical cartridges,
c. all the extra costs are channelled to the consumer in not one but multiple ways.

I understood you correctly. Can't misplace something you didn't touch. And my argument was replace the expensive flash memory for a 128 GB sd card. That would have been cheaper for them and supposedly they wouldn't have shortages now because Apple wouldn't be snapping up all those 32 GB flash modules.

@cleveland124 Wii U 8GB sold poorly compared to Wii U 32GB, with Switch people don't have a choice, so you're likely right. People care about storage these days and now with these semiretail releases they will care even more.

@Yorumi I agree with a ton of that. I for one cannot wait for Subnautica to hit 1.0 release; Wargroove looks to be the Advance Wars fix I've been looking for, and the obvious examples Terraria and Minecraft are bigger and still less expensive on PC (never understood that). On top of MOBAs or MMOs with friends, it seems like dropping Nintendo should be no problem.

Zelda was not the most exciting, but there's no denying I played the heck out of it and enjoyed my time (Wii U though!).
But I still get excited for Mario, and Splatoon > Overwatch for me. However, it's freakin'Pikmin that gives me no chance. There is no substitution for this series. Its combination of exploration, RTS, and action-combat is unlike anything I've ever seen in gaming. They made some big mistakes with Pikmin 3 though; maybe 4 will trash everything (although I really hope not).

Might as well get comfortable while I'm here though, is my thought. One big difference for me is I don't play much on mobile devices, so the portability of the Switch is a huge plus for me.

@cleveland124
But there's no rule that states they have to. Sometimes companies use the loss leader model and sometimes they don't, but neither is right or wrong.

Neither you nor I can predict alternate futures to know whether their approach is the best route to maximize profit. But who cares whether it is or isn't. Companies do the best they can by making the best decision at the time with the information they have. The point I'm trying to make is that it is not wrong for them to choose the approach they have chosen. Could a different approach have led to more profit? Maybe, maybe not. But there is no right or wrong answer.

What about the Playstation4?
All retail games require to be fully installed on harddisk to run!
Within a couple months I ran out of space on the standard 512GB disk that came with the PS4 and was forced to buy a new 1TB harddisk (was over 150 bucks at that time, since the more expensive 2,5inch size is required, as cheaper 3,5inch doesn't fit), so I didn't constantly needed to delete games to play another.

Just for reference, games like Elder Scrolls Online now take up almost 100GB of space alone on my PS4, since they don't seem to do any compression at all.
In comparison. FFXIV + HW + SB expansions only takes up around 30GB total on my hard drive. SquareEnix uses excellent compression.

That is why I immediately bought 128GB SD cards for mine and my son's Switch when we picked up our consoles, which we only 40 bucks a piece.
The switch doesn't utilize the full read/write speed of the high end SD cards, so it's a complete waste of money to spend more than double on those.
the 80MB/s Sandisk Ultra SD cards are more than enough, quite cheap and work excellent with Nintendo Switch.

@johnvboy To be honest, it is not the same. Xbox One and PS4 have 500GB/1TB/2TB of stock memory and you can buy a 3TB small HDD for less than €100 in case that you need more. Also, if you buy a physical game you have to install it but you can also erase it and reinstall it whenever you want, because the data is in the BD.

This is quite different because Switch cartridges are glorified -and slow- SD cards and now they are forcing consumers to pay for both things. They are not really cartridges as has been explained by some websites that have opened them.

Besides, for a handheld to have mandatory downloads when you buy a cartridge is a bit off.

@Jeronan You mean the almost 4 year old stationary home console that, as a product released in 2013, still uses the aging format that is optical media? The console that, having accounted for this, includes a 500GB hard drive (at minimum) out of the box? That PS4?

Not that I don't have my own share of problems with Sony and data management, but how does this excuse what seems to be going on with game publishers and the Switch?

@johnvboy It really is not and I really wish some of you defended the interests of your fellow consumers as rabidly as you defend your favorite corporation.

@electrolite77 Have you compared the price to Super Mario 64? It was also 59.99, but it's true that Rare's games were sometimes cheaper, I remember Diddy Kong Racing and Goldeneye 007 being cheaper than any other Nintendo 64 game. I know for sure that Nintendo's own games were 59.99: Super Mario 64, Wave Race 64, Mario Kart 64, Pilotwings 64...

@MegaTen I'm 35, so I've been playing games likely longer then you've been alive.

I just also remember unfinished broken games released buggy and unfinished that were just the finished product and if you bought it that was just how the game was as you couldn't patch it. I remember pins failing in cartridges that deleted your saves, expansions nearly the cost of a full game that don't give you anymore add ons than something like the MK8 DLC for two or three times the cost. I remember games costing $90 for the standard edition or on the NES games being made purposefully obtuse so you needed a strategy guide or to make you call a help line.

@MailOrderNinja Hah I remember during the time of the SNES and Sega MegaDrive we had to pay between 90 and 190 bucks for one game!
It was insanely expensive in Holland at the time to buy console games!
There was a very good reason why the Pirate community was so thriving with those ROM cartridges. You could just buy an empty cartridge and have any game loaded for just 25 bucks.

@Jeronan I mean the small external 2.5" HDDs, you don't need them to be 7200rpm, actually I don't think they exist in that size. Rpm are not really important in modern HDDs. I bought one recently and it was around that price.

@MsgBoardGamer Technology has decreased its costs. I remember Neo Geo games costing a fortune. Also, Doom 64 was crazily expensive. However, today we have DLC that can be as or more expensive, like Super Smash Bros. 4 to name a Nintendo game.

@Jeronan you've completely missed the point. This is not about install sizes

If a developer makes a game that's, say... 25GB, they put that game on a 32GB game card and ship it out the door. Done. Even if you then have to install the entire 25GB to the system to play it, no big deal. The entire game is on the card you've purchased.
In this case, Nintendo is saying it is acceptable practice to build a 25GB game, put a portion of that game on 16GB, and ship a cart that is on its own unable to play the full game, out the door. They are doing this for no other reason than to save their own costs. Greed. Yes, PS4 and Xbox games require installs, and sometimes have large day 1 patches, but that's not the issue. Those games are still playable with only the disc. Period.
Vita may have had no internal storage, and expensive proprietary storage, but it's physical games are all playable from their game cards. That is the difference.

Honestly, if a developer came out and said "our game is just too large to fit on the media available for this system, so we're gonna put half on the disc/ cartridge and you'll have to download the rest", I'd be fine with tha, but that's clearly not was is going on here. They're taking a 25GB game, and using a 16GB card when 32GB are available. Its greed, it's anti-consumer, and it's unacceptable.

@JaxonH when we're talking profits for companies I think we give some of them too much benefit of the doubt. When someone says company x should have done this or that profit isn't the best response. Most people understand that companies need to make money but we don't necessarily accept that what they're currently doing or what is traditional is the best they can do while still making a profit. That's why often one company gets compared to another it gives us grounds to better understand what's possible.

Usually what is happening is the company is doing just as much as they can get away with. If they could sell games for $30 but people will pay $60 they'll sel for $60. If someone came along and said they could sell it for $40 cause others are doing it, it would make sense to say they have to make a profit.

No one here doesn't want Nintendo to make a profit but many of us see evidence that they could be doing a lot more and being a lot more pro-consumer while still making a profit. They might even make a bigger profit if they were more consumer friendly.

@Jeronan I have 2 ps4s. The 2nd is kept at work and only been brought home for updates a couple of times. It has never not played a game installed from the disk with no updates. Whether or not you managed to fill the 1TB drive on your PS4 is completely irrelevant. Those games are on their respective disks. That is the issue. There should be no excusing putting half a 25Gig game on a 16Gig card when 32s are available. Period. Update it and patch it and expand it all you want after the fact, But the original media should contain a playable game.

It's easy to blame Nintendo for this. I mean, we all knew 32gb of internal memory was a joke. However, if Nintendo can make Breath of the Wild a 13gb download, what possible excuse could 2K have for a basketball game? If they are unable or unwilling to compress their game, they should have to pay for the extra large memory card. Of course that would just reconfirm the idea that Nintendo is too difficult to work with. So let's just screw the consumer!

@daveh30 That's true for Xbox One games as well. As I said earlier, even if you erase a game you can always install it again offline, just using the BD. If it was a day-one patch fixing something no one would complain but this is a new practice authorised by Nintendo: semiretailing.

I totally get where you're coming from and I'm not going to say you're wrong from your perspective, but, A lot of the things you view as anti-consumer I don't think everyone else agrees. And I'm not saying you're wrong because maybe it is for you, but not for me, and maybe not for others.

For example, saying that you have to buy a pro controller because the joycons are too uncomfortable- that's a legitimate complaint... for you. For me it's not. For me, the system I bought came with the two best controllers I've ever used in my life. For you, paying $20 a year for unwarranted online is a legitimate complaint. For me paying $20 a year for unwarranted online is far better than paying $60 a year for unwarranted online (the one game I'll be playing online on X1/PS4, is also P2P like most all games). So sure, maybe it's anti-consumer, but less anti-consumer than everyone else. For you, maybe picking up an SD card is a legitimate complaint. For me, it was always a necessary purchase regardless of how much storage they included (because even 64-128gb would tack on $50, and there is no way they were going to add more than that to the cost). I buy enough games that I need the 400gb microSD. Just like I buy enough games on PS4 that I needed a 4TB external hard drive (and that's after upgrading the internal to 2TB).

So I can respect your opinion but just understand that a lot of people aren't necessarily going to feel the same.

With regard to NBA 2k18, I think we need more information before drawing conclusions. If, for example, they chose to use a 16gb cart to save money, then I would say TakeTwo is the one who is being anti-consumer. There is no reason a 25GB game cannot fit on a 32GB cart. But either way, it's 9gb extra which will not require an SD. And given that every other game is completely on the cart, I don't think this game will make people have to buy an SD card. The warning is likely just covering their butts in case somebody already has filled their storage.

At the end of the day though, I knew I was going to need an SD card the day I bought the system. It comes with the territory. Just like when I bought a 4TB HDD for my Xbox One when I got that system, just like when I installed a 3TB HDD for my PC. It comes with the territory. I am thankful that I have the ability to use an industry standard SD card rather than proprietary $100 32gb memory (eh ehm.. Vita which came with 0gb storage on board). I am also thankful big games do not install to the system. The fact I have 17 physical releases on Switch and have yet to use up my on board storage speaks volumes. I had already filled my PS4 onboard storage by the time I owned 17 games. Nobody thinks everything is perfect, but I live my life understanding that not everything is going to be exactly how I want it to be, and I can either complain about it for the duration of my life span or I can just shrug my shoulders and get on with playing games. I choose the latter.

@daveh30 That's a complete lie! All games that have online multiplayer require you to install the updates or you won't be able to play!

Only Single player games ( which are fewer and fewer these days ), you can play without patching. Though, with today's quality ( ME:Andromeda looking at you ), you pretty much forced to install one or more large updates too to fix all the issues and bugs!

@Kalmaro Nope.. I have a PS3,N3DS and a Switch... I can understand the occasional day one update when there's a game breaking bug, but whole parts of the game? Call me crazy, but that does not appeal to me...

@Jeronan But if you're playing online you are already connected to a server and depend on the server for your whole session. When playing online it's assumed that you are already connected and are downloading and uploading data all the time.

@UmniKnight You and me both, my brother! Hate that third party whinging!

You're absolutely right by the way. I'm saddled with a chronic condition, too (mines Crohn's disease – for which I've had nine major ops). And as someone who doesn't drink or have any other vices, gaming is my means of escape. It's also one of the first things I reach for when my pain starts getting bad. Puyo Puyo Tetris is pretty good at diverting my mind from the discomfort!

@Morph Because the Switch cartridges are glorified overpriced SD cards and perhaps the publisher asked Nintendo for a price reduction and Nintendo said, No, but you can release the other half of your game on the eShop. It might sound weird but I bet that the developer asked Nintendo, there are similar cases like this in which the developers have said that the Switch cartridges are too expensive.

@daveh30 I think we should wait first on how this goes, maybe you won't need the microSD after all if you go physical since Switch has 32GB of internal storage but someday you will still need that microSD if you are like me (purchase a lot of games on e-shop) and don't want to delete stuff.

@daveh30 Switch cards can only go up to 32 GB at the moment, and even then there's not many games that come on that big of a card. Keep in mind also that bigger card sizes also means more expensive card sizes, so it's likely that 2k wants cost parity with the other versions, so they use what's avalible at the moment, and have a workaround to get the same content as the other versions on the Switch.

It's not a great solution, but it's the only one available at the moment, and it's not anti-consumer since all you need is a commonly used, easy to obtain storage medium available for reasonable prices.

@daveh30 After reading your reply to memoryman or whatever now I understand your point and you are right. It is anti-consumer on Nintendo's part and we are already paying $60 for the game so it is inexcusable.

There is a right answer, but you're right neither of us can determine which best that is. I have a hard time with you calling it loss leader because in fact they are not losing money on the switch either way. At some point they reviewed all their options to maximize profit which included adding more value to the package or raising/lowering price and I bet considering adding an SD card was one of those things they considered. Are they right not to? Who knows, but it seemed like you were replying it was irrational to even consider it.

You repeatedly calling me dumb and this topic blowing up means people don't give a crap about sd cards? Okay, whatever. Reality is though it can be niche and make a profit. They probably only need 20% of the people to download one game to make it worth giving every one a sdcard. 20% too high? What about 5% downloading 4 games each? Or 1 out of 70 people deciding to go all digital and downloading 10 games. The math can work to profit Nintendo even if it's niche.

Personally, I don't see the outrage. An extra memory card or hard drive has been a requirement, in some way or the other, for like almost all platforms since the N64/PS1 days. Like some folks already brought up, let's at least be thankful that Nintendo didn't pull a Sony and make it where the ONLY storage option is some insanely overpriced proprietary memory card.

@daveh30 : Your last example is not acceptable either. For example, a film has trouble fitting onto a disc (say, a 2 hour long 3D film with a lot of VFX), then they can either provide a second disc, or compress the film so that it fits onto a single disc (the latter virtually always being the case). The more consumers permit these anti-consumer practices, the worse it's going to become, and unfortunately consumers are being far too docile and permissive nowadays.

If 32GB is insufficient for the developer, than that should be their responsibility to optimise the game accordingly. Otherwise their software has no place on the system, at least in the form of a physical retail release. There is no excuse for withholding any content from being playable from the cartridge. If any data is to be withheld, then what's the point of even producing a cartridge at all? It completely defeats the purpose. Any form of physical media should be playable in full using it alone. One of the reasons why I don't bother with PC gaming anymore is because almost no major game is provided in full on disc (I don't see why they even bothered providing a few gigs of data on the DOOM disc when 40 or so gigs needs to be downloaded separately), but then I'm the weirdo with Blu-ray drives equipped in all of my computers in anticipation of an eventuality where I suspected that PC software would eventually be supplied on Blu-ray disc, but alas, I suspect that that will never happen now. I'd happily burn my own Blu-rays, but with DRM and games requiring a mandatory internet connection, that probably wouldn't have future-proofed them anyway.

In short, I won't be supporting this practice. Capcom's approach to the Resident Evil: Revelations double-pack (with only the first game provided on cartridge, which as already previously released on 3DS and Wii U) is already a huge step in the wrong direction (and I was really looking forward to finally playing the second game). Many multiplat Switch games are already more expensive as it is and now they want to pull this crap on us? Unacceptable. And Nintendo are even worse for it for allowing this to happen.

I'm happy to pay more, if necessary, for the Switch version of a physical release if that is what it takes. But any game that is not playable in full from the cartridge can (and its dev/publisher) go to hell.

@Dakt That's what I thought of when I saw this. I mean it's nice that they will have it displayed clearly on the packaging but it's an ick feeling that has put me off this game as of now, when I was leaning toward snagging it.

I mean I have a 128gb card, but I intended that for eShop only purchases(so my Switch would be future proof as I buy retail), not half-assed space for what should be fully included in PHYSICAL game purchases. -.- I'm likely still getting WWE 2k18, but this hopefully isn't a sign for things to come with others....

@maceng At least read further into the thread before replying. The game is 25GB on Switch and there's 32GB game cards available, 2k just decided to go with a lower capacity card, since they're cheaper.

@Kalmaro You didn't need an extra memory card to play any physical game on the VITA. I still have the original card that came with my VITA 6 years ago. I only use it for save data and random DLC I delete when I'm done. All my games are on cartridge.

@MarcelRguez That's one of the points: 2K has to raise the cost of their game, besides the higher cost in developing since PS4 and Xbox share a very similar architecture, to fit on the on board Switch memory.

lol, this is ridiculous. Finicky, high-maintenance nonsense like this makes me feel like I should just check in to the gaming retirement home and have done with it (I hear they have an Analogue NT hooked up in there).

So many posts here... Too many to read to see if this has been mentioned or not yet.... Been looking around, but from what I can tell the standard version of the game does not have this warning on it (that I saw). It is the other editions that do. And it states "Internet Download required. MicroSD card may be required."

.... "MAY BE" required......

Basically, stating if you don't have the room, you will need it for the downloads. This day and age that should be common sense even without the warning. Almost all the games that come out these days have Day 1 patches. Some of them are rather large in size. Articles like this are nothing more than fear mongering in trying to rile up people for no reason, as far as I am concerned.

As for the people in blaming Nintendo for the flash size... Just remember that if they increased the size, the cost would go up. The internal flash is more expensive than what the SD cards are made out of. If Nintendo did that and raised the cost accordingly, they may have priced the system out of the market for what it is. To those who do not know the difference, here is an example. A standard hard drive (HDD) vs a Solid State Drive (SSD). SDD's are stupidly expensive for the relatively small spaces they hold in comparison to the standard HDD's. They cannot be compared because of how differently they are made.

While not trying to defend Nintendo, this was probably their best options they could have done at this point in time. Even if they managed to do a 64gb internal flash, people would still gripe about the size (after they download the extra 3-4 retail games) in the end, and everything would repeat. At least with the SD cards, they are cheap and easily accessible if ever needed.

@MarcelRguez Are you kidding? Selling the game for an extra 10 bucks could spell the death for the game in Nintendo's console. It will be a sticking point when anyone try to sell the Switch version over the Xbox or Ps4 versions.

Also, 2k is on a pinch: will they ever recoup the cost of the Switch version (which costs more to develop in the first place) if they "take the hit" and absorb the cost? Don't think so.

I'm a high end player, so even if Nintendo would have included a 64GB card, I'll buy a 200GB or 256GB card right away, since I like to download games to my consoles. But for the majority of users, is a pain in the butt: shelling out 300-, 400- bucks for a console with very little memory is not very smart from Nintendo and it shows.

@maceng Some observations:
1. As I said, I seriously doubt they'd need to sell it at 70.
2. Generally speaking and even disregarding point 1, an extra 10 bucks isn't a dealbreaker for the people who buy these games on release.
3. All the more so when factoring in the added bonus of portability.

If 2k is on a pinch, then maybe they should have thought of a better title to put in this particular platform. The system is what it is, so I don't buy the deflection of "if only Nintendo had done X differently". Not that I wouldn't welcome any extra amount of storage, but 2k knew what they were getting themselves into. Still they decided to cram in a Frankenstein of a game that doesn't seem to be a good fit anyway due to storage issues. That's what I don't see as "not very smart" here. I'm positive there's lots of other titles on 2k's back catalog that wouldn't present as many problems or require as much effort as this one. Sounds like smarter business to me.

I don't care. I already have several sd cards for every other mobile device I have that also requires them. This isn't a new thing. Whether Nintendo jammed more on board storage or if you buy a card, you're paying for it either way. Get over it, at least this way you control how much.

Mario, Wave Race and Mario Kart launched at 59.99 (Pilotwings was always 49.99 for some reason) but had a price drop just before Starfox was released over here. It had been flagged up by Howard Lincoln at E3 according to the magazine. You can see the difference in a lot of the mail order retail adverts.

That £10 difference is against a normal RRP of £15 for a standalone Rumble Pack and £25 for an Expansion Pack.

@MegaTen Yeah, I agree with you. But, at the ABSOLUTE VERY LEAST, they could have bundled the game with an Micro SD card. That way it would cause less confusion, than what 2K Games are doing to themselves now.

Personally to me this is confusing me why anyone is surprised or shocked by this.

Let's be realistic people were whining out of the gate before the system arrived when the Zelda size was determined against the amount of on board storage after the firmware eating a chunk of it.

This is no surprise at all and it's just saying the same thing. Some games will download more data for one reason or another and if you run out of room on the system, you'll need expanded memory in the slot or some parts won't work. Old news rehashed as new news isn't news, it's shock posting by the media to scare and make aware.

@MarcelRguez But they not going to do that - why would they? The switch is not the only game in town - it is not even the main game in town.

The reality is , Nintendo should just subsidize the cards for everyone. This is their mess... all 2K is going to do is just cut the Switch out if this does not sell. And they one of the only 3rd party even trying - everyone else is just dumping old ports on the Switch.

@ValhallaOutcast lmao. Actually I meant in regards to other games. If this is something that say, 1 in 5 Switch games require then we could have a problem on our hands. Imagine if Super Mario Odyssey or Metroid Prime 4 required an additional download to play past the first area. That's what I'm talking about.

Edit: To be clear, I'm pretty sure my comment is an extreme example, and I doubt it's going to be something we'll have to deal with. Just a thought. If the eshop ever closed and those required downloads were no longer available it would effectively turn our gamecarts into demos if we didn't already download the content or if our data was lost.

@AgramonteThe reality is, Nintendo should just subsidize the cards for everyone.

That's another valid solution, I agree. Other than that, I don't see how what you wrote after that affects me. There's plenty of third-party studios supporting the Switch, just not big Western ones outside of Ubisoft and maybe Bethesda (we'll see). Personally, I won't lose much sleep if 2k decides to cut support entirely, especially after pulling a stunt like this. I don't think this will be a deal-breaker for those interested in the game, for what is worth.

Besides, I'd instantly double-dip on some of those old ports just to have them on Switch. From what I've seen, there's plenty of people asking for that as well. It's a no-brainer and I'm surprised more publishers aren't working on that kind of stuff since remasters are more popular than ever now.

Is it disappointing yes. If 2K have decided to go with 16GB cartridge then it is a shame.

But going forward I am sorry guys, if you want some of the big AAA third party games then you really need to accept this is gonna happen in the future. 3rd parties are not gonna start using expensive 64GB cartridges. Some games will be bigger then 32GB.

@Yorumi Personally, I put money that would have gone into an NS into a new PC with an AMD Zen 5 1600 CPU as it's core.

Without sugar coating the point, an increasing number of console gamers are simply whipped these days, just taking anti-consumer practices without a peep. The PC crowd is far more vocal when something stinks. This thread is a perfect example of the conflict between people who remember what it used to mean to be decent towards customers, and those who gave up and gave in.

Seeing things like this happen makes me feel ever more comfortable sitting out the NS until the inevitable mid gen SKU upgrade arrives 2-4 years from now. (Every portable Nintendo console since the GBA has had mid gen SKU upgrades within 2 and/or 4 years after launch.) I want games like XC2 and SMT5, but not badly enough to buy the NS before it's prime.

@TheMisterManGuy I hope moore's law will play a role in reducing publishing costs for games into the future. Who knows--it might become more cost effective to use cards. That is if game developers care to contain their game on a single storage device.

So one Switch game requires a microSD card and everyone freaks out? I would like to know how much extra storage is required, which sounds like more than 32GB.

Honestly, I have no plans in buying this game and if this does require me to get a microSD card for more storage memory, I'll pass. Better off getting it on the Xbox One/PS4.

At least microSD cards are cheap. I have seen a 128GB microSD card for £40 (although I bet I could get it cheaper). My Switch does have a 16GB currently, and that is doing fine. Although I haven't downloaded much.

@maceng This has always been a problem with handheld consoles or consoles in general.

The PSVita had ZERO onboard storage and you were pretty much required to shell out another 60-70 bucks for a 32GB special vita memory card at purchase, as Vita games were pretty large in size and any smaller capacity card would fill up in an instant. Even my 32GB memory card was filling up rather quickly and which I bought the 64GB one back then.

The 3DS consoles hardly have any onboard memory and just comes with a very cheap slow 4GB microSD card that will fill up incredibly quick if you download just a few games of the eShop, so I pretty much immediately bought a 64GB microSD card when I bought the 3DS, so I would not have to worry about storage.

The biggest problem I can see this causing is it could deter 3rd Parties from bringing their games to the Nintendo Switch.They could think to themselves "Well we could put this on the Nintendo Switch but our game is far too big so the consumer would need to buy a MicroSD Card to make up for the space....nah, let's not bother and just focus on Playstation 4 and Xbox One".I admit I may be thinking too much into this and maybe it's not as bad as people are saying it is but if I am right, which I really hope I'm not, then this could mean the Nintendo Switch will have the same problem as Nintendo Wii U which cannot be a good thing.

I can't see that being a factor for 3rd parties. Every platform requires some sort of additional memory card or HDD, so this isn't a Switch only thing. More importantly though, I think most Switch owners realize they'll have to buy an additional memory card anyway. Thankfully Micro Sd cards can be had for rather cheap -32 GB cards go for less than $20 on Amazon I believe. That's what baffles me about some of these comments, it's like the Switch is people's first video game platform.

If Nintendo are making huge profits off the publishers purchasing the actual physical carts (which we don't know) then that's silly. They should do them at cost and take profit from the licencing fees.

However they can't really subsidise them. They would have to cut the same percentage of every size of cart and do the same for everybody otherwise nobody would have any incentive to optimise. You can see this in the ludicrous size of some PS4 and XB1 games (e.g.NBA 2K17 which takes up 61GB on my PS4 Pro). That would seriously eat into Nintendo's profits so won't happen.

Switch may struggle for third-party support as badly as the Wii U. However it's unlikely because it's actually a good Console that is selling well. Equally it won't suffer the long droughts Wii U did as when it becomes Nintendo's sole Console it will get much better first- and second-quarter support.

@Kobeskillz what did I say that made you think I care at all about install sizes? I've stated quite clearly more than once that I don't. SD Cards are cheap and plentiful. Memory and installs are not the issue, at all. The issue is Nintendo allowing devs to charge for a product they are not providing. If you're gonna sell a physical version of a game, that media should contain a playable version of the game. Expand it and patch it and update it all you want after the fact, but the original media should contain a game that can be played to completion. If your game is actually too big for the cards, go digital only. Or, if like in this case, the game fits on an available card, and the developer is choosing to use one that's too small to save themselves money, Nintendo should be blocking that practice.

Storage space is a complete non-issue as far as I'm concerned. The concern is devs being allowed to sell a physical copy of the game that doesn't actually contain a copy of the game.

@th3r3ds0xsigh the issue is that the game is NOT too large to fit on the cartridge, so why wasn't it just put there in the first place? (The answer: the developer is CHOOSING to use a cart that's too small, to save themselves money, and sell you a physical copy of the game that doesn't contain a copy of the game)

Who is gaming aimed at these days ? The price of these consoles plus games and extras are ridiculous , Gaming has become very much a middle class hobby , Nintendo should be aiming to be accessible for everyone all ages again and this includes price not just content , This is why i support mobile gaming as it's now the go-to platform for everybody without this drama we see with modern consoles and devs fleecing us for DLC , Look i would rather even buy a little IAP than be fleeced for extra money yet again for DLC and more memory after purchasing a full price game .

@PlywoodStick For me the biggest factor was the portability. I spend a good bit of time away from home and you really can't do what the switch does on pc for the price. So it worked, that's why I went for it. Still with all the things we keep seeing from nintendo and the ultra thin laptops getting cheaper, as well as better and better ios games it's definitely becoming much harder to support nintendo. Really any console.

My PC is a bit old but runs what I want it too so I didn't have that to worry about. It is funny seeing people defend this stuff and just go along with getting ripped off all the time. I think for me monolith is the main thing I would miss if I didn't have a nintendo console. Zelda was fun but I can do plenty better on pc, indies are pc first for the most part, so you're not left with a whole lot.

I guess enough people still buy consoles but you'd think they'd start noticing the rise of steam accounts, the better and more pro-consumer practices and things like that and begin improving. They just seem to be ignoring it entirely though, not sure what they're thinking but they're going to have a lot of competition right around the corning and they don't seem to be preparing for it at all.

Businesses assumptions aren't always correct so they don't always work in their best interest. The Wii U is a perfect example. Nintendo's models showed it would sell and be a profit machine. It didn't.

You have no proof I'm on the wrong side of the argument. You have no proof that including an sdcard would not be beneficial for them. I made a rational argument so quit your silly send your argument to Nintendo waste of space. Your argument is sdcard usage is niche. My argument was it's not and even if it was the math can still make sense. If you disagree thats fine, if you still don't understand I don't care.

I am curious how you'd explain the case of the Wii U though. To your point Nintendo consumers don't download stuff. Yet they overwhelmingly picked up the 32 GB version (essentially a free flash upgrade since Nintendoland was the $50 difference) to the point that the 8 GB version was immediately discountinued and clearenced by retailers for well below msrp prices. It seems your argument would be A. Nintendo was irrational for making a bundle with higher memory and B. Consumers are irrational for overwhelmingly going for the bundle. Of which even if we assume consumers irrationally want more memory than they need it still makes sense to cater to those consumers since they are spending $ on our product.

I argued there are scenarios it's beneficial. That's an opinion which isn't proovable because the market data I'm able to get is more representational than definitive. This is a website where opinions are welcome so I shouldn't have to deal with your hostility on those points.

You're argument is that I'm wrong. That is a fact. That's different than disagreeing with an interpretation of non-definitive facts. If you are going to make up facts you can't back up then maybe you shouldn't use the internet.

Also don't cuss. This is a family site. I look forward to your proof that there is 100% no scenario that makes sense for Nintendo to package an sd card with the Switch to back your stated fact.

@WiltonRoots I bought the 32 GB and put a 128GB flash drive on it... haven't even filled up the system memory and I have a launch system...and I bought a decent amount of games. Nintendo are compression wizards.

@JaxonH you could be right about the game being 60gig and only able to fit 30gig on a sd card so you need to have additional space,Here's the thing what if I don't have Internet or access to the Internet for example what then can I still play the game or not.

@HorsemeatIt says you'll still be able to play the game straight from the cart. But that some modes/features will not be present. So likely the core, bulk of the game will be on cart, but all the additional modes and online features and stuff will need to be installed.

@JaxonH The thing is the bulk of any game is the graphics and sound. The program code wouldn't even reach a GB, I doubt compiled it's more than a few hundred MB tops. So if they're cutting things to save space it would have to be from the graphics and sound files, which would have a pretty significant effect on the game.

@YorumiYa Idk, I'm just going off what they said. And they said the game would be playable off the cart so... I doubt it's the side modes that are playable with the main single player experience being download

You and I both know that neither of us can obtain exact usage of extra memory for the Switch, Wii U, 3DS or any system. Your whole argument is a fallacy. If you argue that you can prove the data then prove me wrong. Otherwise stop wasting precious space on this message board. The digital trees are crying here.

Background you can't prove something. So you set the premise to be that so and so must prove something and when they can't, the conclusion is you are right. The premise is false because you can't prove what you are arguing. The conclusion is false because my ability to prove or inability to prove anything does nothing to validate your argument in any way. Just an FYI.

Those are interesting opinions that you list that I've countered above but I'll give you a couple more thoughts on them before seeing if you have any facts. NBA 2K18 is pretty equal to the hd twins. Sure slightly lower framerate, but all modes, all versions, all DLC, max resolution on Switch. Pretty big risk for TT. We know Switch demand is more than supply right now but we don't really know how high it is. But if you know if it's going to sell 100 million already that'd be interesting to know. Almost all games "require" (using that term loosely because they'll auto download patches if you're connected to the internet) storage usage. Zelda uses about 500 MB for the physical cart which while not a huge amount is still about 2% of the available space. Your argument also ignores digital downloads of which Zelda has been a big seller and will use over 50% of your available space or the DLC for Zelda which if you were highly satisfied with Zelda (as most were) you probably got the DLC.

You've been trying to engage me in the argument of ignorance for multiple posts. Pretty classic case of it. If you need help with the definition I can explain it further and why it's not a good tool to use in arguments. I've maintained all along that there is no proof for what you are asking for and you've not tried to prove your side of the case. Not sure what else you want from me. Pointing out that you are using fallacies for your argument just makes me educated, not a madman. If you don't like it don't use them. You're the only one I've called out on this thread for it so whatevs.

I didn't claim victory but admitted that I couldn't prove what I was arguing and now you are crying because I said you couldn't prove what you are arguing. Most people don't use fallacious reasoning to try to win arguments but here we are. shrug

I warned you about cussing. Resorting to name calling and whatever new fallacious argument you are trying to make with the boogeyman doesn't help your argument either. Providing actual proof would and fallacies are actually determined based on the philosophy of common sense.

I'll let you in on a secret before you go looking for digital download numbers. You won't find them. Nintendo doesn't release them. But Zelda, MK8, Splatoon2, Arms have all been high on the top sellers chart on the eshop since they've been available. If you downloaded Zelda and MK8 (the Tie ratio suggests almost everybody has those), you'll have to pick either Arms or Splatoon because you can't fit all 4. Unless of course you get a microsd card, but nobody does that do they? Then of course there is Mario Odyssey which might be a popular title to download too. I'm actually curious how big the patches for Arms and Splat 2 will end being since they are releasing a good amount of content for those games post physical release versus Zelda which was basically patches for glitches and framerate improvement.

I really hope if you're a parent that you don't tell a scared child to prove something to you or you might be the worst parent ever. If my child was scare of something that didn't exist I would go about proving it not existing to them. Go in the closet show them nothing is hidinbyg there, ect. There are ways to prove things don't exist.

However, this is a nonsense comparison. I have an sd card, you have an sd card, many on here have an sd card. We know demand exists we just don't know how much so trying to get me to prove things that don't exist exist is another fallacy since my argument hinges in no way on the boogeyman existing. Companies spend millions trying to determine demand and they often have incomplete trailing information from that expense. Please research why fallacy arguments don't actually prove what you are intending and are bad arguments. You say market demand is provable. If you could prove that market demand for a Switch sd is less than 10% of owners, that would be extremely strong support for your position. Your position isn't impossible to defend, you just refuse to defend it or acknowledge the limitations of what you are trying to ask.

You guys defending this are biggest problem, bending over so you get third party like the poor for his measly wages.... You people make me sick and is the reason why people play more Nintendo and neglect third party and why PC will be forever Master Race.We all want 3rd Party but this isn't the right way, Cutting content out and forced to download the rest of the game, Paying $10 extra for Switch Version etc is Inexcusable and you're ruining(More on Console side) Gaming by Accepting this. I mean look....they are cheaping out us Nintendo guys AGAIN and because of "eh tHIrd pARty" you guys are accepting crap....What happened for voting with you wallet. Nintendo, Ubisoft,Square, Sega, Bandai,EA etc can follow the rules of QUALITY GAMING then why These companies like Rockstar and Visual Concepts can't follow, why are they exceptions....It can't be because their third party because other 3rd party I mentioned follow. Guys, follow the PC guys and stand up to stupid practices like this.

Now the others like @MegaTen and @Yorumi, Yes be mad, Shout,Scream, stand up as we have power to say no and put our foot unlike the third party Corporate slaves but the Nintendo not the one to blame here, Yes they could put a 64GB or 128GB but at the Switch at $350 to $400 who would buy the thing, 32GB was right choice to make the thing affordable so Nintendo is not at fault, With that whoever said at least Nintendo should stand up to 3rd party as say full content or no go as we are so these practices can stop ASAP. But anyway We should be at the Throats of the Third Party Devs who think this is acceptable and treat us as Peasants, the ones who can pull the same tricks as they did on Wii U, THEY are ones at fault, not Nintendo.